|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aerik Revenans
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
19
   |
Posted - 2012.07.12 21:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
Now, before this turns into a long thread with lots of flaming I want to say I'm not completely against spawn camping.
However, this needs to be limited.
Here's the problem - currently it's possible for every spawn point to be camped at the same time. That's just completely unacceptable. The match I was just in, regardless of where you spawned you would be killed by a HAV. When we took a point and spawned there, there was already a HAV overlooking the spawn point and he would instantly rack up a few kills.
Needless to say, we lost all the points. So we spawn at the reserve spawn location... and surprise, HAV shot kills everyone spawning.
I know that things like this have been addressed in the past, but it really needs to change. As much as I love EVE and with as much as I've enjoyed the dust beta so far, if this isn't fixed very soon the only people that will remain are the campers with the 24/0 k/d etc.
To be honest, this is a problem that a lot of FPS games have had an issue with. If it continues like it is currently, the only people that will play are the players that are on all the time from day 1. From a design standpoint, you really need to look at your target gameplay. If it's intended to be a game of who can spawncamp the best then its well on track. If it isn't, well, take a look at what you're intending for players to do. Right now it's too profitable for players to sit in a vehicle and shoot every time someone spawns. It pretty much ensures you will win, and as a result you already know you will get more SP and more ISK.
My thought is you either need a spawn point or two that isn't campable or this trend is going to continue.
We've got a saying when we're designing games - "WWMD" or "What would miguel do?" Miguel is your typical dude who plays that way in every shooter. He'll sit there and camp with the most OP weapon in every game because regardless of how much frustration it causes everyone else he enjoys it.
So why do I bring it up? Well, when we design our games we ask each other WWMD. If I place this here, how is he going to play like that? We spawn a player here, is he going to wax everyone spawning if he can? If we place this weapon on a tower is he going to camp and grief everyone to the point of quitting?
It's given us a lot of insight when designing levels, and has helped prevent a lot of issues that we could have had. My thought is that you guys should really assess some of those same things. Because while some of these issues aren't a huge problem in the short term, if issues like this are common place then regardless of the non-existent price tag everyone who isn't playing like Miguel are still going to opt out.
EDIT:To clarify the real problem here is with the huge positive feedback loop that's been created. You're rewarded for doing well, which isn't a bad thing. When you lose, you are barely rewarded. So the spawn campers already have a leg up from the camping. They already have quite a bit of SP and ISK to be using effective HAVs. However, the guy getting camped may be a complete noob. No SP, no ISK. Getting camped everywhere pretty much ensures that he will never get any SP or ISK. So the question now is why bother staying in a game where you're getting camped? It's not profitable. This will lead to a lot of rage quits. When half the team rage quits it becomes even easier for them to win. This sort of reinforcement almost completely ensures that over the long term everything will be based around who camps better if it comes to that. When that becomes the norm, those that don't enjoy camping, or are always on the receiving end will end up leaving the game entirely. It's a slippery slope, so IMHO its really something that needs to be taken care of before release.
Due to the below post I thought I'd clarify. If you have one HAV at A, B, C and the reserve point you still have enough players able to sit nearby to camp regardless of the randomized location a player could spawn at. If you doubt this, go play BF3. Randomized spawn points to a degree and many of the matches have degraded into nothing but camping. The issue itself is deeper than just where a player spawns specifically. The heart of the issue is the positive feedback which aids, and even encourages, the players to constantly camp. |
Aerik Revenans
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.12 21:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
You're right. It's a known bug, and it's one that has yet to actually be corrected. Thanks for the hostile post after going tl;dr and responding only to the title though.
Here is your TL;DR: Spawn camping will still be an issue regardless of spawning to a random location due to a positive feedback loop. |
Aerik Revenans
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.12 23:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'm not sure if it's the same one, but I remember a thread like that from before the last wipe.
With this thread I was really trying to draw the Dev's attention to the fact that as it currently stands, the way people are camping is probably different than what they intended when they wrote their GDD. The long term effect of it not being addressed will probably result in the game only being played by those that enjoy camping others hoping to cause rage quits.
For example:
This positive feedback loop is much like a game of monopoly. Typically the result of the game is much like real life, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The player that is doing well is rewarded so much so for doing well that he becomes virtually unstoppable. The player that didn't get lucky in the beginning and struggles along the way serves no real purpose at this point other than to provide another step to escalate the winning player even higher.
In Catan, the player who holds a monopoly over one or more resources is unstoppable. I've been that player, and by the end of the game even though the other players teamed up against me, I had the resources so I won. Once I got that advantage, it took all of my persuasion skills to keep my friends from quitting.
In most games, only the player in the lead enjoys this positive feedback. Those that aren't doing well are actually penalized by the positive feedback loop. Many players in this situation fail to enjoy the experience, and ultimately end up wanting to, or actually quit.
Playing games is supposed to be about having fun and enjoying the experience. Without negative feedback loops in place to prevent things from getting out of control, only the winner will do so.
I agree with you, and others in previous threads, that sometimes it is tactical and even appropriate. The larger question is about consistently rewarding such players with large rewards while penalizing their victims. If it's appropriate and a player simply spawned in a location that is too hot, well in that case it was their mistake and it was their own doing.
On the other hand, when every possible location is camped and a player can't escape with a beacon it's a huge issue. There are all sorts of possible fixes that could be put into place. Simply having a random radius around a location won't be enough. Prime example, if you've lost all the points for whatever reason and are pushed back to the backup spawn it's too easy for the other team to simply move their and camp everyone at one location. Random or not, when you've got every angle covered it doesn't really matter.
Possible solutions:
- Players killed in a backup spawn don't contribute to any SP or ISK for your performance
- Players killed to close to the backup spawn detract from said bonuses
- Backup spawns have cover
- Backup spawns have turrets
- Backup spawns have automated AA turrets that can only fire in their vicinity (no LOS beyond small radius around spawn)
- Automated anti vehicle turrets, same restrictions as above
- Players spawn camped receive consolation SP and/or ISK scaling with number of times they are camped
- Players camped multiple times at the backup spawn receive bonuses to damage, shield, etc scaling with the number of times they have been camped
- Vehicles killing more than x number of players at a backup/default spawn are automatically destroyed
- Killing x number of players while spawning results in a warning, and ultimately a boot from the match (should only apply to the backup spawn)
- Temporary cloak such as in EVE. Allows client lag to catch up so the player object doesn't spawn before the client shows they spawned. Remove cloak in 15-30s, or when player inputs any sort of command aside from chat
- Temporary invulnerability, should only be used with and the same way as temporary cloak
- Ability to spawn outside of beacons and/or spawn points (anywhere on map - on the ground of course), drawback is an increased spawn timer. Instead of 10s, you end up taking 15-30 depending on distance from existing spawns and/or beacons
Those are just a few options, but any of the above would assist in dissuading rampant camping. Having played FPS games since Wolfenstein, and having been working on games since I hacked a PC game called Artura on the Atari ST, I'd say I probably have a little bit of insight, and experience as both a player and designer.
My insight is telling me the issue goes way beyond simply fixing the bug. If the game rewards people for camping when it isn't appropriate, it's actually counter productive to the game's goals as presented by CCP. They seem to want to expand on the EVE universe and attract more potential fans.
If this game ends up going down the camping route, all but the hardcore campers will more than likely end up leaving. If they are new to the EVE universe they will get the impression that camping is what these games is all about. Rather than getting positive publicity, the only posts going up will be ripping into CCP. New players will be scared off, and the game will grow stagnant and will ultimately die.
While I could just write a short two line post, it isn't constructive, and doesn't really highlight the underlying issues. Certain issues can have a major issue on how well a game does when released. Camping itself is one of those. Sure you could just write it off as "no worries, random locations will fix everything" but the truth is fixes to issues that reduce the fun of a game for a large selection of your customer base are rarely as simple as that. |
|
|
| |
|